Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/450/2012

Vazir Ahmad S/o Sagir Ahmad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Saurabh Bansal

26 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No. 450 of 2012

                                                                                    Date of institution: 09.05.2012        

                                                                                    Date of decision: 26.05.2017

 

Vazir Ahmad aged about 40 years, son of Shri Sagir Ahmad, resident of Sirsali Kala, PO Chakavali, Tehsil Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur, UP.

    …Complainant.

                                                            Versus

Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. through its Authorized Signatory, 510, 1^st Floor, Lal Dwara, Opp. Raghunath Mandir, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                             …Respondent.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND……………… MEMBER

 

Present:           Shri Saurabh Bansal, Advocate for complainant.

                         Shri AS Goyal, Advocate for OP

 

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                          The present complaint has been under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant wanted to purchase a truck, accordingly he approached the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) and requested to finance the same. On the assurance of OP finance company the complainant purchased a truck bearing registration No.HR38-S-1527 owned by one Satish Kumar of Gaziabad for a sum of Rs.5,17,000/- and the official of the OP Finance Company, after inspecting the vehicle in question, agreed to finance a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- against the vehicle in question. The complainant fulfilled all the formalities for taking advance in the month of September, 2008 and at that time the official of the OPs obtained signatures of the complainant on many blank printed forms and blank papers. After that, officials of the OP issued a letter dated 25.09.2008 to the previous owner of the said vehicle Shri Satish Kumar that they are going to finance the amount of Rs.4,90,000/- to the complainant after hypothecating the vehicle in their favour. Accordingly, the OP Finance Company sent the cheque bearing No.11914088 dated 01.11.2008 amounting Rs.4,90,000/- to the said Satish Kumar. In this way, the OP Finance Company   advanced the loan in question on 01.11.2008. Thereafter, complainant paid the amount to the OP Finance Company   in lump-sum many time and also paid installments, but sometimes the official of the OPs has not issued a receipts, however, complainant upto November, 2011 deposited approximately Rs.6,00,000/-  with the OP Finance Company  . Thereafter, the Company wanted to clear his entire loan amount for which he approached the officials of the OP Finance Company in the month of December, 2011 and requested to supply the statement of account so that he may deposit the entire amount outstanding against him. The complainant was astonished to listen when the officials of the OP Finance Company   disclosed that the complainant has to pay Rs.6,50,000/-  more to them, only then his vehicle from their hypothecation can be released and if the complainant will not deposit the entire amount then the officials of the OP will take the possession of the vehicle in question forcibly from the complainant. Lastly, it has been prayed that OP be directed not to take the possession of the vehicle in question forcibly from the complainant and also requested to direct the OP to issues true account statement of the account and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Finance Company appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the true facts are that the complainant has got finance a truck bearing registration No.HR38S- 1527 from the OP Company  vide agreement dated 06.10.2008 for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. The loan amount in question was to be repayable in 40 monthly installments out of which first installment was of Rs.19,538/- and rest of the installments were on 19,500/-. But the complainant has not paid the loan installments as per rules and regulations of the OP Company and became defaulter. As on 24.07.2012 an amount of Rs.5,58,725/- (excluding other future charges) is outstanding against the complainant. It has been further mentioned that parties  are governed by the arbitration agreement, this forum has not jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and on merit the facts of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objection and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of the complaint as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of letter dated 01.11.2008 as Annexure C-1, photocopy of letter dated 25.09.2008 issued by the OPs as Annexure C-2, photocopy of receipts of installments as Annexure C-3 to C-22 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Satish Kumar as Annexure RW/A, photocopy of account statement as Annexure R-1, photocopy of power of attorney as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Finance Company.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that the complainant had paid almost the entire loan amount i.e. approximately Rs.6,00,000/-  to the OP Finance Company   and when in the month of December, 2011, he wanted to clear his entire loan amount and approached the official of the OP Company  and requested them to provide him true statement of account then the complainant was astonished to listen that the complainant has to pay about Rs.6,50,000/- more to the OP Finance Company failing which the officials of the OP will take the possession of the vehicle forcibly from the complainant.

8.                     On the other hand, as per version of the OP Finance Company, an amount of Rs.5,58,725/-  (excluding other future charges) were outstanding against the complainant as on 24.07.2012 and as per payment schedule and as per terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant failed to repay the loan amount. Hence, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Finance Company. Learned counsel for the OP draws our attentions towards the copy of account statement (Annexure R-1) and argued that from perusal of this account statement, it is also duly evident that an amount of Rs.6,42,830.84/-  was due against the complainant as on 01.05.2013 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     Learned counsel for the complainant draws our attention towards the photocopy of receipts (Annexure C-1 to C-22) regarding deposit of the loan amount with the OP Finance Company and argued that the approximately an amount of Rs.6 lac had already been deposited with the OP Finance Company, however the OP is threatening to take the forcible possession of the truck in question and lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Finance Company as the OP has specifically mentioned in his written statement that an amount of Rs.5,58,725/- was outstanding against the complainant as on 24.07.2012 and even as per account statement (Annexure R-1) amount of Rs.6,42,830.84/- is outstanding against the complainant towards the loan amount financed by the OP Finance Company. This version has not been rebutted by the complainant only some receipts (Annexure C-1 to C-22) for depositing installments has been placed on file by the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the OP Finance Company has wrongly and illegally charged the amount from the complainant on account of charges, interest etc. It is also not the case of the complainant that he repaid the entire loan amount to the OP finance company. The present complaint has been filed just on the apprehension that in case the complainant will not pay the amount of installments then the officials of the OP will take the possession of the vehicle in question forcibly with the help of musclemen but this plea of the complainant is not tenable as if the officials of the OP Finance Company will commit any illegal act by snatching the vehicle in question forcibly then the complainant is at liberty to take action as per law against the officials of the Finance Company. Further more, the matter involved between the parties is relating to account and both the parties are bound by the agreement executed between them and to decide such type of cases elaborate evidence is required and for which Civil Court is the best platform.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However, complainant is liberty to approach the Civil Court, if so advised. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court:26.05.2017.

 

 

                                                                                               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                                DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR.

 

 

                  (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                (S.C.SHARMA)

                   MEMBER                                                 MEMBER